How many people edit RAW files by making random guesses?

[Aur]

How many people move sliders about in DPP / Lightroom / Aftershot by eyeballing it and how many do it based on data from a light meter or from studio data?

I see this person on a video just move his sliders about, guessing what looks right to him. Is that how some people really do it? Shouldn't those people be using JPG instead if they use no data to determine what should be changed?

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure, but ppl some are just editing RAW...by eyeballing and guessing.

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

 

[Martin.au]

How many people move sliders about in DPP / Lightroom / Aftershot by eyeballing it and how many do it based on data from a light meter or from studio data?

I see this person on a video just move his sliders about, guessing what looks right to him. Is that how some people really do it? Shouldn't those people be using JPG instead if they use no data to determine what should be changed?

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure

Bahaha. No.

, but ppl some are just editing RAW...by eyeballing and guessing.

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

 

[Aur]

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure

Bahaha. No.

Bahaha. Yes...

I thought this was common knowledge. Parameters that determine light metering come from a built in database of thousands of images. All camera makers I know do this.

It just reinforces my point that most people actually don't know what they're doing with RAW files.

 

[Martin.au]

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure

Bahaha. No.

Bahaha. Yes...

I thought this was common knowledge. Parameters that determine light metering come from a built in database of thousands of images. All camera makers I know do this.

It just reinforces my point that most people actually don't know what they're doing with RAW files.

Canon A640 Review - Exposure - Imaging Resource

Canon A640 Review - A640 Exposure

www.imaging-resource.com

How it actually works.

I do love the idea of a camera assessing a built-in collection of thousands of images, looking for something similar. Perhaps in a few decades.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

How many people move sliders about in DPP / Lightroom / Aftershot by eyeballing it and how many do it based on data from a light meter or from studio data?

I see this person on a video just move his sliders about, guessing what looks right to him. Is that how some people really do it? Shouldn't those people be using JPG instead if they use no data to determine what should be changed?

I don't care about the JPG. I care about how the image looks. So I move sliders until the image looks the way I want. This may or may not resemble the original scene.

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure, but ppl some are just editing RAW...by eyeballing and guessing.

Yep. Those people should be whipped.

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

Do you include yourself in this group?

Here's an example. I took this here photo:



This was a RAW file processed according to Adobe's idea of a Nikon JPG. Not too thrilling.

So I twiddled some sliders and got this:



You may like the first one better but I don't.

--
Leonard Migliore

 

[Aur]

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure

Bahaha. No.

Bahaha. Yes...

I thought this was common knowledge. Parameters that determine light metering come from a built in database of thousands of images. All camera makers I know do this.

It just reinforces my point that most people actually don't know what they're doing with RAW files.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/D3A5.HTM

How it actually works.

I do love the idea of a camera assessing a built-in collection of thousands of images, looking for something similar. Perhaps in a few decades.

I don't see any mention of what I said.

Here is the link from Nikon that I showed you. Matrix / evaluative, whatever you want to call it, uses image databases, everyone sort of knows that I think.

: https://support.nikonusa.com/app/an...en-spot,-center-weighted-and-matrix-metering?

 

[J Frank Parnell]

What you are describing is just one way that most cameras can meter a scene. Whether it is called Matrix, Multi, Evaluative, whatever. It is just a further extension of "Automatic" settings that are supposed to make it easier to get a decent exposure. Those same cameras also offer other choices such as Average, Center-Weighted, Spot Metering, etc. for those that have branched out past the Auto stage and who realize that different subjects and lighting require different types of metering.

There is certainly not one correct way to meter every scene any more than there is only one correct way to paint someone's portrait.

Of course, if you do believe that your cameras Matrix metering is infallible, why would you even bother with RAW at all? Why not just accept what the camera gives you and be done with it?

 

[gollywop]

How many people move sliders about in DPP / Lightroom / Aftershot by eyeballing it

Who knows? Are you really expecting anyone seriously to be able to answer this?

and how many do it based on data from a light meter or from studio data?

Probably very few, since such information is virtually useless. The exception would be WB information obtained, say, by a WB Calibration card for the given lighting. But even that might be altered in processing according to taste (not guesses).

I see this person on a video just move his sliders about, guessing what looks right to him.

The whole idea of processing an image is to get something that looks right to the person processing it. Why do you think it would be otherwise? and why do you think it is a guess?

Is that how some people really do it?

No doubt some do; no doubt some don't.

Shouldn't those people be using JPG instead if they use no data to determine what should be changed?

That question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure, but ppl some are just editing RAW...by eyeballing and guessing.

The camera's light meter can at best help determine an average level of exposure. It is useless at determining a proper exposure for containing extremes. Far more often than not a proper exposure for an image to be edited in a raw processor has nothing whatsoever to do with the exposure that would be determined by those "tens of thousands of images." A high DR scene, for example, exposed ETTR to preserve highlights would typically be quite dark. The image using the camera's metering, by contrast, would undoubtedly get the average exposure level correct but blow the highlights.

The raw processing of such a dark image would increase the Exposure slider to produce a desired (not guessed) average lightness while using Highlights to keep the highlights from clipping and Shadows to bring up the shadowed areas. This is called tone mapping, and is essentially attempting to squeeze the high DR of the scene into the more limited range of the monitor or print. This is not done by guessing and is done with strict method in mind. Different people may do it in different ways.

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

I do; apparently you don't.

 

[Aur]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

Do you include yourself in this group?

Leonard Migliore

I don't think RAW is better, it's different, I think it's fine if you have a light meter with you or something, and you know what needs changed. In the case I don't, no I won't know what I'm doing, I'd be making random guesses.

 

[Aur]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

I do; apparently you don't.

what do you use to determine how much exposure an image should have then when you're editing your RAW file

 

[gollywop]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

I do; apparently you don't.

what do you use to determine how much exposure an image should have then when you're editing your RAW file

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed

and, while you're at it, you might try

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

to learn what exposure is.

You'll begin to realize that you do not set exposure when processing the raw file. It has already been set when you push the shutter button. You set brightening in the processor. And you bring the average level of brightness up to whatever is appropriate for the way you view the image.

--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

Do you include yourself in this group?

Leonard Migliore

I don't think RAW is better, it's different, I think it's fine if you have a light meter with you or something, and you know what needs changed. In the case I don't, no I won't know what I'm doing, I'd be making random guesses.

That's an interesting statement. As it happens, I have a light meter. I don't use it a whole lot because the one in my camera usually does the job but there are some situations where the meter allows me to get a better exposure.

Now, what does this have to do with RAW? Do I need the meter when I'm moving Lightroom sliders at random?

Also, you didn't answer the question I posed in the post you quoted: Do you prefer the image processed per the out-of-camera JPG or the one that I randomly altered?

 

[Aur]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

I do; apparently you don't.

what do you use to determine how much exposure an image should have then when you're editing your RAW file

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed

and, while you're at it, you might try

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

to learn what exposure is.

You'll begin to realize that you do not set exposure when processing the raw file. It has already been set when you push the shutter button. You set brightening in the processor. And you bring the average level of brightness up to whatever is appropriate for the way you view the image.

--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

histogram and blinkies, that's eyeballing to me

can I show you a histogram and you tell me if the image is over or underexposed?

 

[tko]

Photography isn't about math and being technically correct and light meters. The purpose of the initial exposure is to get you into the ballpark, and make sure you haven't lost any precious data. That's why RAW is so important--you lose less of the scene's original data.

The final adjustment should always be done by feel, trial, and experience. No different from painting or composing. I think you should adjust until you bring out the mood and feel of the original scene, no matter if it isn't technically correct. If it was late at night, spooky, and desolate, give the photo what you felt. That JPEG may make it look bright and cheerful.

You want high key, you want the shadows blocked, you want gritty realism--make it so. The nice thing about RAW is you can try over and over again, and do so very quickly, with a lot more control than what you get in the field.

This is heavily processed. But it made me remember what I felt when I was there.







--
no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak

 

[Aur]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

Do you include yourself in this group?

Leonard Migliore

I don't think RAW is better, it's different, I think it's fine if you have a light meter with you or something, and you know what needs changed. In the case I don't, no I won't know what I'm doing, I'd be making random guesses.

That's an interesting statement. As it happens, I have a light meter. I don't use it a whole lot because the one in my camera usually does the job but there are some situations where the meter allows me to get a better exposure.

Now, what does this have to do with RAW? Do I need the meter when I'm moving Lightroom sliders at random?

Also, you didn't answer the question I posed in the post you quoted: Do you prefer the image processed per the out-of-camera JPG or the one that I randomly altered?

--
Leonard Migliore

I didn't answer because you liked the RAW one more, I like the first one more because it looks more natural and I know the world doesn't look like the second picture.

I like the photograph in general, it's not about that, it's a nice picture.

All I know is, when I take that first picture, and I just take it into lightroom, I will have no idea what to do with it, unless I had a light meter with me, or unless I was inside, and I knew how much lighting the room had.

I shoot on my contarex most of the time, so I don't get to choose JPG or RAW. All I choose is my ISO when I buy my film roll.

 

[gollywop]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

I do; apparently you don't.

what do you use to determine how much exposure an image should have then when you're editing your RAW file

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed

and, while you're at it, you might try

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

to learn what exposure is.

You'll begin to realize that you do not set exposure when processing the raw file. It has already been set when you push the shutter button. You set brightening in the processor. And you bring the average level of brightness up to whatever is appropriate for the way you view the image.

--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

histogram and blinkies, that's eyeballing to me

They have nothing to do with "eyeballing." When used properly, they allow you to determine just how appropriately your shot is exposed -- and they do so far more meaningfully than does the camera's metered setting.

can I show you a histogram and you tell me if the image is over or underexposed?

Yes, if its a histogram of the raw data, or an in-camera histogram from a camera whose settings are established to allow the camera's jpeg histogram to give an good representation of the underlying raw data.

--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[Aur]

Photography isn't about math and being technically correct and light meters. The purpose of the initial exposure is to get you into the ballpark, and make sure you haven't lost any precious data. That's why RAW is so important--you lose less of the scene's original data.

The final adjustment should always be done by feel, trial, and experience. No different from painting or composing. I think you should adjust until you bring out the mood and feel of the original scene, no matter if it isn't technically correct. If it was late at night, spooky, and desolate, give the photo what you felt. That JPEG may make it look bright and cheerful.

You want high key, you want the shadows blocked, you want gritty realism--make it so. The nice thing about RAW is you can try over and over again, and do so very quickly, with a lot more control than what you get in the field.

This is heavily processed. But it made me remember what I felt when I was there.



--
no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak

I understand your last sentence. Because you are using it as a form of artistic expression to express your emotion. But the argument against the use of JPG and many people who are in favor of RAW, do this on technical grounds.

 

[Mark B.]

How many people move sliders about in DPP / Lightroom / Aftershot by eyeballing it and how many do it based on data from a light meter or from studio data?

I see this person on a video just move his sliders about, guessing what looks right to him. Is that how some people really do it? Shouldn't those people be using JPG instead if they use no data to determine what should be changed?

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure, but ppl some are just editing RAW...by eyeballing and guessing.

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

I strive to get the exposure & WB technically correct when the shot is taken by using the meter in the camera - that's less PP for me to do. But the meter doesn't know, for example, how much saturation, contrast or clarity I want nor does it always get the white & black points exactly where they should be. It also doesn't know how I might want to convert to a b/w image.

 

[BlueEther]

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure

Bahaha. No.

Bahaha. Yes...

I thought this was common knowledge. Parameters that determine light metering come from a built in database of thousands of images. All camera makers I know do this.

It just reinforces my point that most people actually don't know what they're doing with RAW files.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/D3A5.HTM

How it actually works.

I do love the idea of a camera assessing a built-in collection of thousands of images, looking for something similar. Perhaps in a few decades.

I don't see any mention of what I said.

Here is the link from Nikon that I showed you. Matrix / evaluative, whatever you want to call it, uses image databases, everyone sort of knows that I think.

: https://support.nikonusa.com/app/an...en-spot,-center-weighted-and-matrix-metering?

I suspect what they meant to say is something like: "We used a database of 30,000 images to create a lookup table that we use use to compare the current scene to using a complex (hell it might even be simple) algorithm"

I'm no camera software designer so take the above with a pinch of salt

--
Charles
Somewhere south of 38 S

 

[More Keepers]

My approach is to attempt to capture the image so that the image content is as complete as possible with minimum blown out highs and the minimum loss of shadow detail (+-EV). I'm also trying to balance motion blur against desired depth of field is desired while also minimizing noise (shutter speed, aperture and iso). There's nothing unique about this as most are doing a balancing act like this before they press the shutter button or when they are chimping. Fully automatic modes often won't produce the best results because they can handle this balancing act as well as the photographer. I'm pleased when I have a good raw image to work with in post. If the raw, like a negative, is acceptable on those criteria then post processing includes distortion removal, sharpening, contrast, brightness and anything else that suits my fancy.

The result is how I remember the scene or would like the scene to appear. Who really knows what exact scene was? It's how the image is expressed that's most important. Some people have a good sense of how to post process so that others might appreciate the result. You don't want to over saturate everything as some have noted that Ken Rockwell tends to do. Who is really to say what is right? Maybe some people like heavy saturation on some images. This is also why you want to have brightness and color calibration set correctly, so you aren't processing to a color and brightness that might not view or print well.